CAT/C/52/D/481/2011 reports of incidents of detention and torture of political opponents.19 The Committee considers that this is all the more worrying in light of the fact that Iran frequently administers the death penalty and applies it without due process and in cases involving certain crimes not meeting international standards for the “most serious” offences.20 7.7 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes the complainants’ claims that K.N. was sought at his home three times by the Iranian authorities on account of his activities with the Komala opposition party and that F.W. was beaten on each of these occasions; that S.N. performed computer-related tasks for the Komala party at K.N.’s request; and that numerous photographs of K.N., S.N., and F.W. participating in political demonstrations against the Iranian regime have been published on the Internet. The Committee further notes the complainants’ submissions indicating that three of their friends have been subjected to torture and interrogation by the Iranian authorities on account of their contact with K.N., and that another friend denounced K.N. to the Iranian police as a dissident activist. The Committee considers that all of these factors indicate a real and personal risk of torture should the complainants be returned to Iran. The Committee further considers unpersuasive several of the reasons for which the State party’s authorities question the credibility of the author on the basis of the lack of clarity of his presentation of the facts and on his limited knowledge of the Komala party. The Committee considers that such lack of detail as may exist in the author’s presentation of the facts is not material and does not raise doubts about the general veracity of the author’s claims.21 The Committee also notes the State party’s observation that the Iranian authorities monitor only dissidents with prominent profiles, but observes that recent reports indicate that low-level opposition is also closely monitored in Iran.22 7.8 The Committee therefore considers that there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be subjected to torture if returned to Iran. Moreover, the Committee notes that, since Iran is not a party to the Convention, the complainant would be deprived of the legal option of recourse to the Committee for protection of any kind. 8. In the light of the above, the Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the deportation of the complainants to Iran would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Committee urges the State party, in accordance with rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps taken in response to the decision expressed above. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Russian and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 19 20 21 22 10 See Human Rights Council, report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (A/HRC/25/61), paras. 2, 4, 27–32 and 52–57; Human Rights Council, Note by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Iran (A/25/75), paras. 7, 17–20 and 43. See A/HRC/25/61, paras. 5 and 84. Communication No. 41/1996, Kisoki v. Sweden, Views adopted on 8 May 1996, para. 9.3. Ibid., paras. 88–90; A/68/503, paras. 6–15.